Shots in the Dark

Bucky Dent’s Baseball School, Delray, Florida

Fisherman in New Zealand have caught what is believed to be the largest squid ever landed intact—about 33 feet long and weighing 990 pounds.

The fishermen were fishing for Patagonian toothfish—which is served in American restaurants as “Chilean sea bass”—when they hooked the giant squid, which was also fishing for Patagonian toothfish at the time. (By the way, the Brits call these “colossal squids,” which is sort of sweet.)

According to one expert, calamari rings made from the squid would be the size of tractor tires.

Good thing I’ve never liked calamari….

(A twofer!)

It makes sense. This is such beautiful land, and Bedminster is one of the richest places in the country.

—Donal Trump, on why he’s building a mausoleum for himself in Bedminster, New Jersey

Here’s more evidence that making broad generalizations about gender is considered wrong when men do so negatively about women…but right when women generalize positively about themselves.

On the Center for Global Development website, Kennedy School student Molly Kinder writes about women’s gender-specific leadership style.

…the ascent of so many talented women to presidential posts reflects an emerging openness to women (and minorities) that should rightly be heralded as a watershed shift in societal attitudes. But perhaps more importantly, that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Drew Gilpin Faust were chosen to lead war ravaged Liberia and unwieldy Harvard University reveals a far more salient reality: that women make damn good leaders and, importantly, different leaders. [Blogger: emphasis mine.] The fundamental contrast between Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor, and the contrast in style between Drew Gilpin Faust and Larry Summers — these are both evidence enough of this fact. Consensus building, accomplished, competent, pioneering and principled. (And, notably, all are mothers). Now that’s a style of leadership that the developing world — and my own country — would do well from.

Huh.

Two quick things about this post: I love the fact that Kinder has already established that Drew Faust is a “damn good leader” two weeks after she’s named president. Also, that she can write about the presidencies of “war-ravaged Liberia” and “unwieldy Harvard” in the same sentence.

More to the point, a simple contrast between one leader, who happens to be a man, and another leader who happens to be female proves…absolutely nothing, except that the two leaders are different. It certainly doesn’t establish that leadership style and gender are linked, despite Kinder’s argument that the simple contrast between a man and a woman is “evidence of this fact.”

I am also intrigued by the introduction of motherhood as a contributing factor in leadership style. Maybe it’s true, I don’t know. (Does that make the FAS a bunch of big babies?) But I’m not sure that Kinder has fully considered the implications of her idea.

After all, if motherhood shapes leadership style, what about fatherhood? Larry Summers, from everything I ever heard, was a really good dad to his three kids. Shouldn’t Kinder give Summers some leadership points as a result? Or is motherhood positive, and fatherhood negative? And what are the specific qualities that stem from motherhood, and what are the specific qualities that flow from fatherhood?

And if women are better leaders because they are mothers, does this mean that women who choose not to have children are somehow lacking, and must compensate for not being moms?

This is very tricky ground.

I am fascinated by the way Drew Faust’s appointment has prompted the emergence of this sexual double standard. Attributing universal attributes to a gender is highly problematic whether it has to do with leadership style or innate aptitude for science. I’m not saying either is wrong, but you have to be consistent. You can’t say one declaration is perfectly appropriate and the other is inherently offensive.

I’ll bet Molly Kinder dinner at the restaurant of her choice that she was outraged when Larry Summers made his remarks about women in science….

Radcliffe Institute fellow Christine Stansell has an interesting post over at Open University. (And you thought that was an oxymoron.)

Jubilation reigned at the Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study in Cambridge last week, where I’m a fellow this year. The new president of Harvard is an admired and appealing figure, beloved by her staff and garnering immense affection even from the visiting scholars who’ve only known her for six months. About three-quarters of the fellows are women, and fully aware of the ardor of what Drew Faust just accomplished. To jump through one hoop after another, ever higher, for six months!

Stansell goes on to argue that, in academia, having children significantly decreases women’s chances for tenure but actually increases men’s.

Statistically, each child of a man makes him more likely to get tenure. The brilliant young mother appears stressed out and underproductive. The brilliant young father, no longer the obnoxious young nerd he might have seemed when he was hired, now seems all the more human and charming for his (discrete) family responsibilities.

Huh.

My problem with that paragraph is that it posits statistical evidence, then introduces an anecdotal and highly subjective (“obnoxious young nerd”) and absolutely unquantifiable generalization. If Larry Summers had made this kind of remark, what would the reaction be? Or are such arguments only offensive when they come from white men in positions of power?

Sometimes the Boston Globe verges on self-parody.

Consider, for example, this editorial about Deval Patrick’s costly office redecoration. It begins:

QUESTION: When Drew Gilpin Faust moves into Elmwood, the historic, three-story home of Harvard presidents, will anyone howl if she replaces the drapes?

Why then has there been such a hullabaloo over Deval Patrick’s redecoration of his office in another late 18th - century architectural treasure — the Massachusetts State House?

Some of the answers are obvious: Harvard is private; the government of Massachusetts is public….

If the public/private distinction here is so obvious—which it is—why does the writer even bring Drew Faust into the question?

The Globe seems to be implying that people are mad because it’s a man who’s redecorating his office, while everyone would expect a woman to do the same. How politically correct of the paper—and how silly.

No, people are mad because one of the new governor’s opening moves is to blow a bunch of money on new furniture, a new Caddy, and an expensive chief of staff for his wife.

In a time of concerns about budget deficits at Harvard, if Drew Faust spent a bunch of money refurbishing the presidential mansion and got herself a new Cadillac, that wouldn’t go over so well either…..

“If Bob Dylan’s done [an iTunes ad], I’m up for it.”

—Jon Fratelli of the Fratellis on selling out (Rolling Stone, 3/8/07)

Today, with a magazine deadline looming—and a book manuscript due in two months—I am, naturally, thinking of vacation. This is partly because I’ve already planned one; I’ll be diving in late May. And while I’m on my favorite Mexican island, I may take a day trip to swim in a cenote (pronounced see—no—tay) along the Yucatan peninsula, as described in today’s Times “Escapes” section.

Have you ever been to one of these inland caverns? They are not easily described, but essentially they’re massive cave systems filled with fresh water. They dot the Yucatan, sometimes appearing like enormous sinkholes, sometimes looking like little more than a very small pond, no bigger than a backyard pool—which can travel underground for uncharted miles. Some of the cenotes are set up for tourists, with stairs and lighting. Others you can find at the end of an apparently abandoned dirt road, with a rocky path to the cenote and a man waiting to take your pesos.

Using flashlights and rope, you can dive them, though I haven’t. Snorkeling in a cenote is already an intense experience. The water is crisp, cool, and remarkably clear. There are some small fish, but there’s not really much life in them; they are stark. The underwater rock formations are dramatic and otherworldly. You can swim from chamber to chamber, especially if you’re willing to hold your breath and swim under a rock ceiling for 30 or 40 feet until you reach a room where there is again room to lift your head above water. This is really not far, of course, a child can do it, but when you’re swimming and there’s only rock overhead—no light, no sky, no air—your rational mind can desert you.

(I’m not great about these things; when I’m underwater, I like to be able to see light overhead. Once, in Belize, I went canoeing with friends in an underground cave, and at times the cave ceiling was so low that we could not paddle, but had to lie down in the canoe and use our hands to grab the rock and pull the canoe along. Not for the claustrophobic.)

At Gran Cenote near Tulum, my friends and I climbed to the top of a rock wall and jumped about 30 feet or so into the water. (You kind of have to pick your spot.) Unlike in the United States, in Mexico you can do these things without having to sign eight pages of legalese. It’s a risk, sure (though not really a very big one). But the kind of risk that makes you feel deeply alive.

Swimming in a cenote is humbling and spiritual—a Baptist preacher would understand. It’s another aspect of our wonderful neighbor to the south that many U.S. citizens don’t appreciate. Mexico is a hard and beautiful place, the beauty often in correlation to the toughness. Cenotes fill you with feelings of humility and awe at the power of nature, and maybe a little more respect for the people who inhabit this amazing country.

El Gran Cenote, Tulum.

For all the good things that can be said about a Princeton education, sometimes, aren’t you just really glad that you didn’t go there?

The Patriots quarterback is taking a lot of grief for the delicate dilemma in which he finds himself: dating the world’s most famous supermodel even as his longtime ex announces that she is pregnant with his baby.

Bridget Moynihan: In trouble. Giselle Bunchen: Trouble.

Tom Brady is 29. Bridget Moynihan is 36. I think the phrase ‘old enough to know better’ fits here,’ writes one sports columnist. …I’m profoundly disappointed in Our Tom.

Oh, please—like you wouldn’t be playing the field, in his position, no puns intended.

Meanwhile, various sexist scribes are suggesting that Bridget Moynihan, worried about her age, has “trapped” Brady.

I’ll probably regret saying this—in fact, I just about already do—but can’t we all just be a little more French about such matters? Enough with all the prudishness, chauvinism ,and moralizing. Everyone needs to relax a little. It’s not like Tom and Bridget had a one-night stand and this happened. They were together for four years.

So far as we know, Tom Brady is still a good guy and Bridget Moynihan is a lovely woman and a relatively okay actress who’s going to have a baby. Life is a little messy sometimes. Let’s be happy for her and wish them all the best.